Anti-XMRV Blog -New post
- Thread starter Daffodil
- Start date
anciendaze
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,841
Thinking calmly, I'm rather glad ERV is not on our side. One intemperate supporter can do more damage to a cause than large numbers of opponents. Think about asking a speaker if they agree with statements A, B, C, D carefully chosen from that blog to illustrate bias.
dipic
Senior Member
- Messages
- 215
It's funny - ERV (aka, Abbie Smith) seems like a nice, calm, non-aggressive person when talking in front of an audience (and certainly intelligent regardless.)
[video=youtube;rL6BJGZngkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6BJGZngkw[/video]
It's a shame she has to act like such a foolish, immature brat when typing on her blog.
[video=youtube;rL6BJGZngkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6BJGZngkw[/video]
It's a shame she has to act like such a foolish, immature brat when typing on her blog.
- Messages
- 41
Good point, dipic. I would never have guessed that the person in this video is the same person who, on her blog, once told someone to "go f--- yourself sideways with a rusty knife."
- Messages
- 41
In her current blog, Abbie stresses over and over the point that there is no quantitative way to measure whether antiretroviral drugs are having any effect on a person. And she is correct. For now. But her argument won't be correct for long, because a quantitative test for XMRV (a plasma assay) is coming out of of the NCI this summer.
Hope123
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,266
This is news to me; is there a source you can point me to? Is this like a viral load test for HIV?
justinreilly
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,498
- Location
- NYC (& RI)
ERV is a troll and should be treated accordingly- ie ignored, imo.
Sam Carter
Guest
- Messages
- 435
Judging by her blog I thought ERV was a kid and it's kinda' shocking to see she is not. How does one account for such aggression directed at sick people and professional scientists?
Dx Revision Watch
Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
- Messages
- 3,061
- Location
- UK
According to her blog she is at least 26; she started a PhD in late 2007, U of Oklahoma.
One of the criticisms of ERV in this thread (and others) is that the writing on her blog is rude and disrespectful, etc. But in this thread, more than one poster has said ERV is childish, mentally disturbed, a troll, and I don't even know what else.
How does this help us? Doesn't this thread bear a resemblance to some of ERV's posts and the comments on her blog? Critiques of ERV's posts would be stronger if they stick to substantive issues. Otherwise, the back and forth is just personal sniping: ERV says something nasty and people respond by calling her names. Does anyone think this approach is productive or helpful?
How does this help us? Doesn't this thread bear a resemblance to some of ERV's posts and the comments on her blog? Critiques of ERV's posts would be stronger if they stick to substantive issues. Otherwise, the back and forth is just personal sniping: ERV says something nasty and people respond by calling her names. Does anyone think this approach is productive or helpful?
Why do we have to critique her? Why can't we just ignore her?
I personally am not interested in anything ERV has to say. I suggest we move onto discussing something more pertinent.
akrasia
Senior Member
- Messages
- 215
On Cognitive Authority
How does this help us? Doesn't this thread bear a resemblance to some of ERV's posts and the comments on her blog? Critiques of ERV's posts would be stronger if they stick to substantive issues. Otherwise, the back and forth is just personal sniping: ERV says something nasty and people respond by calling her names. Does anyone think this approach is productive or helpful?[/QUOTE]
"It will take time to answer the many questions raised by the discovery of XMRV. The good news is that some of the anti-retroviral drugs licensed for treating AIDS can be immediately tested for their efficacy against CFS."
(Vincent Racaniello, Virology Blog, October 15, 2009)
A couple of points:
1) We are speaking about ERV because she writes a foul mouthed, vicious blog. This is her primary, self chosen way of distinguishing herself, it is the carrier wave for her claims, which, as a non scientist, I cannot properly evaluate. There are other voices, Vincent Racaniello, among them who seem to me, and others I respect, to be dispassionate and quite intelligent.
2) JSpotila, I challenge YOUR neutrality on this issue. If this continuous spew was being directed towards Suzanne Vernon and her projects, would you even be addressing her. Do you think ERV is some lonely voice, crying in the wilderness?
3) The science of XMRV is in its infancy but there are those who would strangle it in its cradle. This isnt going to happen because this time we have some major players who are both participants and observers, who arent going to allow this to happen, unlike the DeFreitas debacle. I urge everyone to watch the Eric Klein presentation. As he points out, the Science article demonstrated xmrv taken from the blood of people with m.e. INFECTING, I believe, prostate cells.
3)Whatever ERV's claims are they are not backed up by ANY science. They are inferential. She doesn't know for a fact that ARV therapy, administered with skill, is harmful. Does she? No one does. That's the point.
All opinions are not equal. Nancy Klimas has infinitely more credibility on m.e. than say, Peter White. If I have 10 minutes of good energy to spare I would rather listen to an interview with her than with him.
Ill take Racaniellos opinion on ARV over ERVs any day. If you think that she has something valuable to say why not ask the CAA to arrange a webinar with her?
Spot on Garcia.
How does this help us? Doesn't this thread bear a resemblance to some of ERV's posts and the comments on her blog? Critiques of ERV's posts would be stronger if they stick to substantive issues. Otherwise, the back and forth is just personal sniping: ERV says something nasty and people respond by calling her names. Does anyone think this approach is productive or helpful?[/QUOTE]
"It will take time to answer the many questions raised by the discovery of XMRV. The good news is that some of the anti-retroviral drugs licensed for treating AIDS can be immediately tested for their efficacy against CFS."
(Vincent Racaniello, Virology Blog, October 15, 2009)
A couple of points:
1) We are speaking about ERV because she writes a foul mouthed, vicious blog. This is her primary, self chosen way of distinguishing herself, it is the carrier wave for her claims, which, as a non scientist, I cannot properly evaluate. There are other voices, Vincent Racaniello, among them who seem to me, and others I respect, to be dispassionate and quite intelligent.
2) JSpotila, I challenge YOUR neutrality on this issue. If this continuous spew was being directed towards Suzanne Vernon and her projects, would you even be addressing her. Do you think ERV is some lonely voice, crying in the wilderness?
3) The science of XMRV is in its infancy but there are those who would strangle it in its cradle. This isnt going to happen because this time we have some major players who are both participants and observers, who arent going to allow this to happen, unlike the DeFreitas debacle. I urge everyone to watch the Eric Klein presentation. As he points out, the Science article demonstrated xmrv taken from the blood of people with m.e. INFECTING, I believe, prostate cells.
3)Whatever ERV's claims are they are not backed up by ANY science. They are inferential. She doesn't know for a fact that ARV therapy, administered with skill, is harmful. Does she? No one does. That's the point.
All opinions are not equal. Nancy Klimas has infinitely more credibility on m.e. than say, Peter White. If I have 10 minutes of good energy to spare I would rather listen to an interview with her than with him.
Ill take Racaniellos opinion on ARV over ERVs any day. If you think that she has something valuable to say why not ask the CAA to arrange a webinar with her?
Spot on Garcia.
jimbob
ME/CFS84-XMRV+
- Messages
- 321
- Location
- myrtle beach, s.c.
E-rroneously R-evolting V-erbiage
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I agree with jspotila.
It's always fun to question the sanity of those you dislike, but it does seem slightly out of place on a CFS forum when so may of us are angered by the casualness with which others will claim we are mentally disturbed.
ERV's manner at the debate was driven by a desire to convince people of her position. On her blog it's more sensationalist and adversarial because it seems that this is what many readers of science blogs want. Has anyone seen 'Revenge of the Nerds'?
I'm not sure what I think about it all. In a way, it undermines a lot of what I like about science, but if it draws more people into reading and thinking about science, maybe it's a good thing. I disagree with a lot of what she has said about CFS - but she's a virologist who has admitted having no interest in it. She's not a journalist being paid to research and then fairly represent some subject. she's a blogger spewing forth her own thoughts. That doesn't mean she's insane!
It's always fun to question the sanity of those you dislike, but it does seem slightly out of place on a CFS forum when so may of us are angered by the casualness with which others will claim we are mentally disturbed.
ERV's manner at the debate was driven by a desire to convince people of her position. On her blog it's more sensationalist and adversarial because it seems that this is what many readers of science blogs want. Has anyone seen 'Revenge of the Nerds'?
I'm not sure what I think about it all. In a way, it undermines a lot of what I like about science, but if it draws more people into reading and thinking about science, maybe it's a good thing. I disagree with a lot of what she has said about CFS - but she's a virologist who has admitted having no interest in it. She's not a journalist being paid to research and then fairly represent some subject. she's a blogger spewing forth her own thoughts. That doesn't mean she's insane!
I am interested in what ERV has to say purely in order to counter her disinformation since I believe (OK, hope) that one way to deal with dark seeds of doubt is to shine the light of truth on them.
Her style (bile) leads me to apply a health warning whenever I see her mentioned however, and recommend to any suffering patients - especially WPI supporters - that only those who feel well tooled-up to do battle in a sewer seek her blog out - and I don't link to her to feed her ranking, as the vast and increasing majority of members have agreed every time the question of whether to do so has been discussed.
However her credentials, while minor, are in relevant fields and her "shock-jock" makes her rankings quite high and as such her rumours and speculation (which are generally along the lines of "I don't understand this it sounds weird to me ergo it's rubbish") need countering IMO because her allegations may sound plausible to the ill-informed.
Garcia, I know you're expressing an opinion with emphasis there, and someone might pop up to accuse me of feeding ERV by even posting here - and could cast the same accusation at anyone else posting here - so let's be careful not to fall out by accusing anyone of being on the side of the enemy in what is really a disagreement over tactics.
Once one starts to attribute sinister motives to people based on one's own incomplete understanding of their behaviour, their stated opinions, and the tactical significance of all that within the bigger picture, one's on a slippery slope towards shooting messengers and triggering civil wars. We should never even appear to do that if we want to best progress our common goals.
Comparing the bile on ERV's site with anything on Phoenix Rising sounds over the top to me, and I hope nobody's posted here in her style, surely it would have reached the moderators by now? - but if there is anybody who feels sorry for her (for example if they think "troll" is not a generous way to describe ERV) they can report the post of course.
I would personally like to suggest that any accusation of being an idiot, mentally disturbed, hysterical etc, ought to be considered one of the most offensive and judgmental accusations possible to publicly level at a person, even and indeed espeically to idiots. At least in the fairly recently past, publicly levelling this accusation at someone has been considered a fairly serious criminal offence in at least one country (btw anyone with more detailed information on that I'd love to see it). So I'd personally like to see that being explicitly against the rules, however I am not wading into the question of whether we should apply such rules to ERV or SW just at the moment...
Her style (bile) leads me to apply a health warning whenever I see her mentioned however, and recommend to any suffering patients - especially WPI supporters - that only those who feel well tooled-up to do battle in a sewer seek her blog out - and I don't link to her to feed her ranking, as the vast and increasing majority of members have agreed every time the question of whether to do so has been discussed.
However her credentials, while minor, are in relevant fields and her "shock-jock" makes her rankings quite high and as such her rumours and speculation (which are generally along the lines of "I don't understand this it sounds weird to me ergo it's rubbish") need countering IMO because her allegations may sound plausible to the ill-informed.
Garcia, I know you're expressing an opinion with emphasis there, and someone might pop up to accuse me of feeding ERV by even posting here - and could cast the same accusation at anyone else posting here - so let's be careful not to fall out by accusing anyone of being on the side of the enemy in what is really a disagreement over tactics.
Once one starts to attribute sinister motives to people based on one's own incomplete understanding of their behaviour, their stated opinions, and the tactical significance of all that within the bigger picture, one's on a slippery slope towards shooting messengers and triggering civil wars. We should never even appear to do that if we want to best progress our common goals.
Comparing the bile on ERV's site with anything on Phoenix Rising sounds over the top to me, and I hope nobody's posted here in her style, surely it would have reached the moderators by now? - but if there is anybody who feels sorry for her (for example if they think "troll" is not a generous way to describe ERV) they can report the post of course.
I would personally like to suggest that any accusation of being an idiot, mentally disturbed, hysterical etc, ought to be considered one of the most offensive and judgmental accusations possible to publicly level at a person, even and indeed espeically to idiots. At least in the fairly recently past, publicly levelling this accusation at someone has been considered a fairly serious criminal offence in at least one country (btw anyone with more detailed information on that I'd love to see it). So I'd personally like to see that being explicitly against the rules, however I am not wading into the question of whether we should apply such rules to ERV or SW just at the moment...
Martlet
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,837
- Location
- Near St Louis, MO
Moderator: I have no opinions on ERV's blog or on anyone else's as I don't read them. My only concern is that this discussion does seem to be degenerating and I can only ask that people get back to the issues without the personal statements and attacks.
This kind of spew HAS been directed at many people, some members of this forum and some not. Dr. Vernon is only one of many people who have been targeted by one person or another in the insulting way that ERV talks about Dr. Mikovits. In all cases, I think using insults and foul language derails discussion about the issues and points of disagreement. I don't think insults should be directed at ANYONE - not Dr. Mikovits, not Dr. Vernon, not members of this forum, not ERV.
I supposed you can challenge my neutrality if you like. But if you read what my post said, it should be clear that I was questioning the way ERV is being criticized in this thread, not the fact that ERV is being criticized. Again, I welcome substantive criticism, debate and discussion. I do not welcome mudslinging, no matter who is holding the mud.
The Association has arranged for Dr. Racaniello to participate in the July webinar on XMRV. The Association has also arranged for Dr. Katz to give a webinar on XMRV and blood safety in August. I think we all agree that these two scientists are extremely qualified to speak to the issues.